One of the chief objectives of globalism is to transfer wealth from rich nations to poor nations. To the equality-of-results crowd it sounds great, because they don’t understand that spreading the wealth actually makes everyone poorer.

The main reason I’m against giving handouts to countries who destroy themselves through their socialist policies is that it sends the wrong message. We should not lie to such countries about the morality and merits of capitalism. The greatest gift we can offer is to help them understand that freedom is not about security or equality; it’s about insecurity and inequality.

We should teach them that the price of freedom is self-responsibility, and self-responsibility means that no one has a right to a house, a car, a job — no, not even healthcare. What everyone does have a right to is exactly what others are willing to pay him, free of government interference.

Those who think otherwise are responsible for our $20 trillion national debt and a federal budget deficit that is projected to be in the area of $500 billion and rising. Economic security is not a right, but it sure is a formula for disaster.

If we continue to subsidize bankrupt nations around the globe, we will be encouraging them to believe that capitalism is about security and equality. That, in turn, will cause them to be disillusioned when they find out the hard way that it is not. If instead we focus our efforts on educating them to understand that capitalism is about freedom of choice, self-responsibility, and risk, we will be doing them a great favor.

Unfortunately, progressives (as well as many phony conservatives) do not seem to understand this, especially wealthy faux liberals who are immune to the effects of socialist policies in Washington. I was reminded of this a couple weeks ago when a casual acquaintance of mine invited me to a social gathering at his home. In a moment of temporary insanity, and after being assured that no members of Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union, or the Communist Party USA would be in attendance, I agreed to drop by.

I tend to be a target at limousine-liberal gatherings, and, sure enough, a middle-aged gentleman of means came up to me and, from out of the blue, sneered, “Capitalism is the most evil system ever invented.” He obviously was trying to get my goat.

Displaying my finest George Will deadpan expression, I asked how an intelligent, successful gentleman like him had managed to arrive at such a fascinating conclusion. To which he groused, “Under capitalism, the poor are exploited by the rich.” Yikes — it was the ghost of Vladimir Lenin!

Masochist that I am, I asked him to define the terms rich and poor for me, but he simply waived aside my question as though it were frivolous. My acquaintance’s wife then intervened and admonished us that political discussions were forbidden in her house, thus preventing a Sunday afternoon homicide.

Darn. I didn’t even get a chance to see the expression on his face had I been able to lay this one on him: The gap between the rich and the poor is supposed to increase under capitalism! That’s right, folks. Like it or not, it’s built into the system.

But hold on: Also built into the system is the fact that almost everyone is better off under capitalism. Why? Because trickle-down economics really doeswork! Try finding a Republican politician who will admit to that.

The U.S. government’s own Census Bureau’s statistics confirm this truth. Average-income figures clearly show that during the Reagan years, almost everyone’s income rose significantly, while during the Carter years, most people got poorer. Does anyone seriously believe that voters kicked Carter out of office and gave Reagan two landslide victories because they were better off under Carter and worse off under Reagan?

What was in play during the Reagan years was the so-called invisible hand of the marketplace. When people realize they can reap financial rewards by providing better goods and services to others, they work harder and longer hours to do so. As a result, the economy prospers and everyone is better off.

On the other hand, the more government interferes with this natural process, the worse off everyone is. How far mankind has advanced is not a reflection of his true potential; it is his true potential minus government interference. Those who believe that a strong central government is needed to manage a nation’s economy simply do not understand the awesome power of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Which takes me back to the growing disparity between the rich and the poor (setting aside, for now, the important question of who has the omniscience and moral authority to decide who should be slotted into these two categories in the first place). In a mythical, totally free society, if everyone were to start with nothing, some people would become “rich” while others would become “poor.”

Now, stop and think about that for a moment. Wouldn’t natural forces assure that the most successful people would become even more successful over time and thus increase the gap between themselves and those who have not been as successful? After all, they would be using the same talents, efforts, and self-discipline that made them better off in the first place.

I’d love to see the Trump administration set aside childish notions and tell the truth about this “income inequality” garbage. Of course the gap between the rich and the poor increases under capitalism. But that, of and by itself, does not harm anyone. (Remember, the pie is not fixed.) The only problem is the one caused by venomous progressive thinkers who have unilaterally decided that such a gap is not “fair.” Which, of course, is merely their subjective opinion.

Personally, I don’t think of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor as fair or unfair. It’s simply reality. However, I do believe the fact that successful people tend to become even more successful is fair, provided they achieve their success on a non-coercive basis. Why shouldn’t a person be allowed to become as successful as his talents and hard work will take him?

That said, I believe the first step toward regaining our lost freedoms is to totally defeat progressive subjectivism. Go-along-to-get-along conservatives need to come to grips with the reality that compromise does not work, because it encourages a lie, and lies simply do not work.

Of course, the progressive is free to think whatever makes him feel good at any given moment. However, he should not be allowed to force others to give up their freedom to accommodate his arrogant notion of one of the most abstract ideas known to man: fairness. Fairness is a subjective word, right up there with “social justice.”

To paraphrase the great Milton Friedman, the only social justice that makes any sense is for everyone to keep what he earns in a totally free market.

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

77 responses to “The Truth About Capitalism”

I agree with you 93% of the time. I think what you say surely applies to adults. But I do think we have a moral responsibility to provide, through our taxes, housing, food, and health care to children.

Cold and heartless I may be, but I have to disagree. I see the family as the key component of society – not the individual. If I choose to devote the resources to assure that my children and grandchildren have the best that I can afford, is it right to forcibly take a portion of that to provide for other families? I think not. In the long term, the key issue to me is not how well I do, but how well my family and my descendants do.

If society, through taxation, provides "housing, food, and health care to children" then what are we teaching those parents? The same rule that Mr. Ringer spelled out here also applies.

Bob (Bly), two very quick thoughts, if I may: 1. A "moral responsibility" is personal (since government should not be in control of our morals providing we don't infringe upon the rights of others through the expression of our morals) so, yes, I absolutely agree that we have a moral responsibility to help disadvantaged children, as well as disadvantaged adults. And, by the very nature of that premise…2. This is where charity comes in. In a truly free (libertarian) society, without the handcuffs of red tape, needless, politically-based regulation, and cronyism, there would be (to quote one of my old heroes, the late Harry Browne) enough jobs for everyone who wanted one, and enough charity for everyone who truly needed it. So, we would be able to take care of the disadvantaged but in a way that respected everyones rights and personal values. P.S. I'm a huge admirer of your work.

Depends on the charity. The United Way only disburses about 8% of collected funds, which is why I never contribute to them. Faux charities like the evil Clinton Foundation only enrich the founders, and do relatively little for others. Marketing and salaries do eat up a lot of the budget of charities. Local is generally better than national or worldwide and many local charities have primarily volunteers and spend little to anything on marketing.

Hi Richard, just saw your question and was about to respond but Jim Hallett already did and I agree with his thoughts. I think that, like practically anything else, when it comes to charities you have the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is why it's important that when donating to a charity we do our due diligence and make sure that the way the charity operates is congruent with what we would need to feel good about supporting them with our dollars.

Thanks. Back in the 90s I gave $50 and $50 monthly to Save the Children type charities. Sally Struthers advertised one. When I first lived in the Philippines, a teacher co-worker was married to man who worked for some church charity. Most of the money collected, she said, went to the church, and brain-washing, not the kids. New a woman in Manila with 3 kids, all on one of those Programs. She said out of $25, the kid got maybe $3, and, they had to work in or for the Church. So much for Charities, but yes, they have to be sorted out. LIVE AMONG those in poverty as I have and do, no need for charities. Easy to help DIRECT. And then you KNOW if a kid got taken to the dentist!

Very sad when that happens, Richard. That's why – as supporters of any charity – we need to do our research on that organization and feel comfortable with how they operate. Fortunately, there are also many excellent ones, as well. Meanwhile, THANK YOU for all the work you've done, and are still doing, in the trenches!!

Glad to see you are also a fan of the late Harry Browne, and your response was excellent. Most Americans, in particular, are very generous and have a real desire to help others less fortunate. However, govt. by definition is COMPLETELY IMMORAL, and to steal from anyone to distribute to others is totally wrong, and simply creates dependency. For any proof of that, look at the colossal disaster that was LBJ's "Great Society". Billions spent, poverty increased, the black family structure was ravaged, and a massive govt. dependency was created. Govt. is always a THIRD PARTY transaction, so they have no desire to care about price or quality of anything, and hence the resulting failure of everything govt. touches. Aiding poor people in the USA or overseas has been a massive failure as well. Voluntary charity of individuals is always better and also a great motivator to become wealthy enough to have some "extra" to give to others, as opposed to having it fleeced from your wallet by an unethical, evil entity like the federal govt.

Thank you, Jim. I appreciate your kind words regarding my response. Yes, Harry was truly a hero of mine and I consider myself extremely fortunate to have gotten to know him briefly on a personal level while putting together a fundraiser for him here in south Florida during his second run for president. Regarding LBJ and his "Great Society" (quotation marks definitely needed), that's an example I often use when discussing the general results of government. Apparently, LBJ even said, "poverty as we know it will be eradicated in two years." Hmm, how did that one work out? As Harry Browne used to say, "Government breaks out legs, then provides us with crutches and says, "you see? If it was't for us you wouldn't be able to walk.'"

I got to meet him at a Howard Ruff conference in CA in the 1980's, but then he moved to Vancouver, BC, Canada (a good decision, as I think it is North America's finest city), so I never got to see him live again or really get to know him. "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" is one of my all-time favorite books, and as one other who comments on these articles from time to time said, "He reads it once a year just as a refresher." I voted for him both times, but the deck was heavily stacked against anyone from outside the Demopublican establishment. Ron Paul made a few more inroads in '08 & '12 and opened some minds to what real freedom could be, but the decades of brainwashing from "progressives" make the task a monumental one. I fear that only a massive collapse will allow the majority to consider another alternative to evil, coercive Big Govt.

Hi Jim, Yes, the immense lack of media coverage of "anything Harry" during both campaigns is what many of we supporters called, "The great Browne out." What a shame that was, but hardly unexpected. Yes, His book, "How I found Freedom…" is a classic. One of my favorites, as well. Another excellent book of Harry's was published posthumously based on two short manuscripts he wrote in the 1960's. His widow found the manuscripts and apparently through a series of introductions it ended up being published by Ken McCarthy of System Publishing, who titled it, "The Secret of Selling Anything." (I hope I have the history of that totally accurate – if not, I apologize.) Far more than just about selling, it's basically the best treatise on Human Nature I've ever had the honor and pleasure to read. If you'd like to read a blog post I published on it, visit http://www.burg.com/2013/07/the-secret-of-selling….

Bob – why must it come through taxation? Surely those of us who have the means and the desire can fund charitable organizations that will provide all of the above and more, including the education and values training needed by so many to get out of their own way and become productive members of society. Government "entitlement" plans have done more to increase the number of poor people than they have to solve any of the problems. For example, prior to the Great Society, the percentage of single parent black families was 35 percent. Today, it's 75 percent. Single parenthood with a preponderance of female-headed households almost guarantees life in poverty and contributes mightily to juvenile delinquency as well. So the Great Society's expansion of welfare, subsidized housing and food stamps did nothing more than create an entrenched underclass.

Jean, you point out one of the huge travesties of LBJ (though there are many as he was pure evil, even having his own sister murdered on Christmas morning), and yet the preponderance of black folks, led by deceiving clowns like John Lewis et al. continue to revere this man. NO ONE did more damage to the Black Community than LBJ. As long as govt. keeps giving people fish instead of teaching them how to catch their own, we will have more dependency, more poverty, more failure. It keeps increasing, and geometrically, too.

I'm sorry, Bob, but taxation is something done through government force. Either you pay what a bureaucrat demands or a man with a gun comes to your house from the government and forces you to. How is that moral?

Now there's the "Restoring the American Dream" Robert Ringer I know! Good one, sir! I was getting worried that you had devolved into a name-calling curmudgeon. What are the odds President Trump will engage Congress in a bi-partisan effort to operate within the paradigm of reality, reason, egoism, and capitalism? http://www.politicalfolks.com/

How about being kind and caring to taxpayers who are tired of paying as these people have more and more kids? After first kid on government dole, all subsequent children should be cared for in a government facility until parents are able to provide for them or until they are adopted out to responsible people, whichever comes first. And I would imagine that all of you morally superior people would be glad to fund this…..

Our current system provides a great incentive for the least-successful, the least-responsible, and the least-capable to breed and produce more of the same. Insanity!

No government dole. No children in "government facility". Is it "fair" to those children? Sadly, they are the true victims here, but that's what happens when their parents are irresponsible – and the government facilitates that irresponsibility. We need to look at the bigger picture. What is the best long-term strategy – not what is best for that individual child; otherwise, we continue on a downward slide from which there is no recovery.

Again, this goes back to my belief that it is not the individual, but the family that is the fundamental building block of a society. Some individuals (those children born to the welfare queens, drug addicts, alcoholics, thug factories, etc.) are going to suffer. Until all parents understand that children are THEIR responsibility, and not the responsibility of productive taxpayers, then there will continue to be suffering children. The sooner we get back on the right track, the better for all concerned.

Let's stop govt. bailouts, for one. The millions and billions lost via TARP and the other bailouts, not to mention FED QE policies, that go to people who, under a real capitalist system should be living under a bridge after having run their businesses into the ground, is the ultimate welfare.

And we could talk about medical boards preventing competition, other licensing issues, etc.

But that is socialism, which is where we live now.

With capitalism, people end up where the market places them. It is a thing of beauty. We approximated it until the early 20th century and have slowly moved downhill ever since.

The starting place is eliminating any welfare program that is indexed to the number of children. Next step is eliminating any welfare program of any sort. Phasing those programs out over a 5 year period would allow time for adjustment to the real world yet be close enough that it would be hard to ignore.

I agree with the fact that Capitalism is by far the best system produced by humans up to this point, but because it is a human creation, it sooner or later evolves into a system of handouts, parasites and corporatism where the one's in power who produce nothing force the one's who do produce to handover part of their loot and in exchange are given monopolistic favors. I just don't think Democracy as it is now constituted in the U.S. and other countries is compatible with Capitalism. In theory yes, but not in practice.

If it works in theory, it must follow that it will work in practice. There can be no contradiction.

I must mention that Capitalism does not guarantee that people will act morally, but Capitalism paves the way for a moral world. And, that is what is missing from the world is a rational moral philosophy. That's the problem!

You said "When people realize they can reap financial rewards by providing better goods and services to others, they work harder and longer hours to do so. As a result, the economy prospers and everyone is better off."

That is not the reality of capitalism (or more accurately not the reality of humans). People realized that they can reap even better financial rewards by manipulating the system, outsourcing production to other countries, and providing lower and lower quality goods and services. As a result, they propser while the economy suffers and people in general are not better off. While yes, "poor people" share the burder of responsibility as they continue to shuffle into Walmart and McDonalds, let's not pretend it's everyone's on a level playing field.

I would think that people who "shuffle into Walmart" are grateful for a more affordable alternative in relation to their means. Upscale versions still exist for those with greater means. It's freedom of choice.

It also seems that "outsourcing" to other countries is a form of spreading the wealth. Whatever they earn is greater than what they would otherwise have… or, they wouldn't do it. If it weren't for false standards such as minimum wage, that would not happen anyway; at least, not on a large scale.

We continue to discuss "ideals" but frequently forget to include reality. Human nature being what it is, even the wealthy resort to coercion in order to gain still more wealth. In an ideal world, everyone would respect the property of everyone else. I admit I'm amazed at how many wealthy folks have switched to supporting the Dems. I'm also disgusted with the RINOs who basically lied to us for 8 years promising repeal of ZeroCare. As long as there is no price to be paid for lying or cheating, guess what?

Coercion is a direct result of democracy and govt. involvement in things. If all were done on a free market basis, including the justice system, we would have remedies for those shortfalls in human behavior which of course would still occur. Many rich folks do indeed use corporate welfare from the govt. or other forms of immoral behavior to promote their wealth (look at the damn Clintons!!), but if wealth could only come from producing better products or services that people VOLUNTARILY purchase, there would be no such problem. Socialism and big govt. have become so heavily woven into the American psyche now, that it will take a major effort to reverse the tide and have folks take responsibility, cherish free market capitalism and Commit No Aggression against anyone.

In principle, it makes sense. In practice, our capitalism has been perverted with distortions in the form of regulations that serve as barriers to entry, preventing small businesses from competing with corporations. In an increasingly globalized and automated world, those living in high wage countries will only see a continual decline in the value of labor as it seeks equilibrium with outsourcing and efficient shipping and automation capital investment ROI. Small businesses have neither the capital to automate nor the reach to outsource at the level of global corporations so, increasingly, they fail. As the value of labor declines, corporations pay less… supply vs. demand.

The tipping point comes in a democracy when more of the voters fall below the line than above it. They can then vote themselves free stuff, either directly or through bribing their elected officials with votes. An increasingly unequal society either ceases to be a republic, ceding to rule of, by, and for the elites, with both physical and virtual iron gates separating the classes or becomes a nanny state, where the unproductive class' peace is bought with a basic income.

Robert, I have saved a copy of this column to share with anyone complaining to me about how the free market never works. Typically, I ask them, "when has it ever been tried in this country?". Now I will send the article, along with my question.

When Capitalism "evolves into a system of handouts, parasites and corporatism" it ceases to be Captialism. It's then something else – crony-capitalism, fascism, socialism, etc. Capitalism is exactly what Milton Friedman said social justice is: "… everyone … keep what he earns in a totally free market."

Capitalism is not a system. It is not implemented from above somewhere. It is only freedom pure and simple. When people are free to trade and barter for their own mutual benefit, the prosperity that results is inevitable. When this condition of maximum economic freedom existed as it had the first 137 years of the "American Experiment", (before the monolith called the Fed existed), the phenomenon of unheard wealth creation available to all had to be called something. Karl Marx called it Capitalism. He meant it as a derogatory. Unfortunately, too many of us to this day, believe him.

Alas, many people are driven by their personal feelings of guilt. This makes them want to always dish out money to those who have less. Which is nice, bless them for being so generous with their own cash. The trouble is they don't just want to dish out their own money – they want to force everyone else to dish out their money too. This makes them turn nasty and vicious, trying to impose their personal "morality" on others.

They feel that it is not enough that they should be Very Good, they must also force other people to be as good as they are (according to their personal opinion of what it means to be a good person).

As for poor children, many people voluntarily support children's charities and children's hospitals. There is no need for force. Giving to charity and supporting social causes is a private matter for each man and his own conscience.

If those people felt so guilty, then they would be dishing out their own money, not demanding money from others via taxation to be redistributed to people they deem to be "lesser." Guilt has nothing to do with it – the left is all about power, manipulation and self-serving egotism.

I love the thoughts in this column. Great work! I think the government has a role – to ensure that people don't cheat – specifically cheating such as insider trading, or large players using their clout, money or power to lock out others and prevent a market from operating. Natural monopolies come to mind, such as the telephone company once was. But we are so far past a government just ensuring markets are operating that it is harmful to us all in terms of loss of freedom, too high taxes wasted on ineffective programs, and an overbearing government causing us all to unwittingly violate laws because there are simply too many to keep track of. Conservative thought keeps this in mind and despite the sadness of some suffering under capitalism we realize it is the best system humans have come up with. Based on logic and evidence. Progressives seem to decide almost purely on emotion, ignoring facts such as where socialism has lead (Venezuela being just the latest example of a very inefficient economy and mass deprivation from the inefficiency then leading to a dictatorial government to try to hold power despite terrible results). I truly wonder why university professors who should be familiar with the history of socialism and communism and its failures would lie to their students about what a good idea those systems are versus capitalism.

If it is good and right for gov't to engage in one good work, then it is good and right for it to engage in a thousand good works. Where would that lead to? Socialism and then communism and then to equal poverty and misery for all. The legitimate, authorized work of gov't is stated in the Bible, Romans 13. To punish the evil doer and praise those who do well. Nothing else. That would involve a lot of work if they would do it right. There are many necessary expedients involved in order to carry out that work. If anyone thinks the gov't should do benevolent works, that's just his personal opinion. Does anyone have the right to impose and enforce his own personal opinion on others? We should help the poor. The Bible commands that we do. But that's a work of individuals, not the work of gov't.

That's because those who preach entitlements are the least likely to volunteer 10 percent of their own money toward charitable giving. Each and every leftist believes he or she IS the underdog, deserving of all the free stuff he or she can grab onto. Leftists like Donahue are truly greedy, believing they are entitled to something for nothing, and offering little value while demanding big bucks.

I agree with the comment that capitalism is not a system. It is simply about people being free to make exchanges that they value. Anyone can be a capitalist too, it has nothing to do with governments or political affiliation or being 'right' or 'left' or any of that nonsense.

Also it is remarkable that the United States which is viewed as a 'capitalist' country is also the country where citizens give the most to charity. Many people are brought up to give privately and not announce to everyone about how Good they are and how much they gave to help others, so you wouldn't necessarily know whether they give or not. Which is exactly as it should be.

From my view, real capitalism is not a system created by mankind. Left alone, it is the natural result of people freely seeking to fulfill their goals. We have more than enough laws on the books to jail those who do so dishonestly.

The simple fact is, there is no earthly being with the knowledge, insight, and foresight, to know how much of one's earnings should be taken for others, or who should get it. Only the earner knows that. Personally, I willingly choose to financially help my extended family and I'm certain I'm not alone in that. Government thieves give no consideration to that as they take what they will to give to complete strangers they deem are more deserving. That is the height of dishonesty.

The worst thing is that you cannot have a rational discussion with folks who decide that they have a monopoly on deciding who is good and who is not. The horror of being approached by someone who would say something like this "“Capitalism is the most evil system ever invented” is unimaginable because the statement is wrong on far too many levels.

There is actually no rational way to have that discussion, despite Robert's best efforts. Asking them to define their terms was a good start, but the truth is that they define rich as 'people who have more money than me' and poor as 'people who have less money than me' so you won't get far with that approach.

Basically their philosophy is that 'people with more money than me should be FORCED to give it up to the people with less money than me'.

I'll tell you exactly what my "fair share" of taxes is: zero
My ideal social order would be a completely voluntary, "pay as you go" culture. And yes, that includes medical care, policing, welfare, and roads and highways. Under this model, all people would be extremely price conscious, and would always seek the maximum value for the least cost, with multiple choices available in a highly competitive, capitalist free(d) market. I think after awhile, even the most hardened statist skeptics would be surprised to discover that these formerly "public" services would become a lot less expensive, overall, at every level, once the politics, taxation, and corruption/cronyism were taken out of the equation.

You've explained the ideal quite well. It may take awhile to educate all the misinformed, given the huge power and influence of the lying media, the professional indoctrinator forced schooling establishment, and the corrupt politicians who want NONE of the above, since it would strip them of their power (and ability to gain undeserved wealth).

Speaking of "good" people, I saw an interesting report on the liberal mind set.

The repost stated that liberals approach policy from the position "I am the type of person who…", which could be warm, loving, generous, more brilliant than others… "good" things. Then, when they are questioned or challenged it is not a challenge to the value of the policy, it is a challenge to their value as a person. They feel attacked and will attack back like a cornered rattlesnake.

That does explain the results I've gotten when debating a liberal. I've always said, scratch the surface of a warm loving liberal and you find a nasty s.o.b.

Yes, that is why liberals focus on their good intentions: "I was only trying to help, I am a very good person and I meant well" when their policies prove to be a disaster. Same if you ask them how their stupid policies will work: that's irrelevant because "I'm a very good person and I'm only trying to help". Same if you criticize a different liberal "he's a very good person and he was only trying to help."

You can't have a debate with anyone about their good intentions. This explains the foreign aid disaster. People give stupid money to help corrupt demagogues in failed states because they're only trying to be good people and help others, so what could go wrong?

It is especially easy for them to be good and generous with other people's money.

Most Liberals do not know that they are "Liberal". They do not see themselves as anything but a "good ,kind, loving and sensible person that wants fairness for all" Oddly enough, anyone who disagrees with them does not deserve fairness, is automatically an evil person and must be personally attacked. In my experience Liberals tend to be vicious and narrow minded people who really do not think about the real effects that their beliefs have on others.This can be difficult to deal with when all your family members are Liberal and you are – not. Hang in there, be polite and give no quarter!

Mega-kudos to Robert Ringer for a fantastic article. There you have it from the horse's or rather the Tortoise's mouth. I agree 100%. This should be required reading for all these Antifas and Social Justice Warriors. But then, these know-it-alls who know absolute nothing will never get it. And a funny thing, I read on the net where socialism is very popular across college campuses in this country. And nearly all who were asked what "socialism" is, virtually none knew, or gave a short unintelligible garble, or just uttered "Uhhhhhhhhhhh……." "Uhhhhhh……is not an answer, by the way! These are the same Looney Tunes from Hell who have never learned to say "please" or "thank you". That is because they live a sheltered life with mommy and daddy and are spoon-fed all this crapola from Radic-Lib college professors, and never have worked a day in their life! And another peeve I have are all these wealthy Radic-Libs who support all this distribution of wealth and income "equality" and stand to have the most to lose, while living in their lavish homes and driving these fancy ritzy automobiles like Radic-Lib Whoopi Goldberg!

Here is my take. A la Ayn Rand, capitalism is the only moral economic system geared to the rational man period. I now rest my case concerning capitalism.

Lucky, circumstantially, I stopped my college teaching career mid-way after 15 years. Partly because of the UNequal Rights Amendment. Liberal students like there are now would have NOT liked MY classroom!

This should be required reading for all the Antifas and Social Justice Warriors, but then they will never get it. I saw recently on the net that socialism is very popular across college campuses in this country. A reporter asked many of them if they know what "socialism" is. Their response ranged from bewildered blank stares to "Uhhhhhhhh……." Well, "Uhhhhhhhh" is not an answer. Being a "socialist" is convenient, cool, and fashionable nowadays. You don't have to know what it is, just be one and tell others you are one, and you'll rock!!!

Mega-kudos to Robert Ringer for a fantastic article. There you have it from the horse's or rather the Tortoise's mouth. I agree 100%. This should be required reading for all these Antifas and Social Justice Warriors. But then, these know-it-alls who know absolute nothing will never get it. And a funny thing, I read on the net where socialism is very popular across college campuses in this country. And nearly all who were asked what "socialism" is, virtually none knew, or gave a short unintelligible garble, or just uttered "Uhhhhhhhhhhh……." "Uhhhhhh……is not an answer, by the way! These are the same Looney Tunes from Hell who have never learned to say "please" or "thank you". That is because they live a sheltered life with mommy and daddy and are spoon-fed all this crapola from Radic-Lib college professors, and never have worked a day in their life! And another peeve I have are all these wealthy Radic-Libs who support all this distribution of wealth and income "equality" and stand to have the most to lose, while living in their lavish homes and driving these fancy ritzy automobiles like Radic-Lib Whoopi Goldberg!

Egalitarianism is a completely crazy anti-freedom ideology. It's screwing up the modern world, and yet this crazy ideology is spoon-fed to us from kindergarten to grad school (even the structure of schooling is based of the egalitarian ideal). Equality is fine when it means equality before the law (aka impartiality), but it's completely anti-freedom and brutality oppressive to all, whether it's equality in income, social status, approval, goods, services, any other external outcome, or attempt to keep a certain level of "disparity" in those things.

Why? Because each person is unique, and thus has unique thoughts, abilities, desires, values, actions, and time preferences. This guarantees unique outcomes in income, status, goods, services, etc. Trying to equalize and maintain equality of income, status, goods, services, etc. means that every persons thoughts, abilities, desires, values, and actions must conform to every other, and must never deviate. Everyone must wake up at the same time, go to the bathroom at the same time, buy the same things from the same people, and never deviate regardless of desires or needs. To maintain a certain level of disparity, every person must repeat their own actions at the same time every day without deviating in any way. Either one is crazy, brutally oppressive and immoral.

The egalitarian state is like a crazy old lady running around shoving a cookie-cutter in everyone's face trying to make them all equal. Any egalitarianism of outcome is an immoral, crazy cookie-cutter conformism that oppresses us all, and it's a direct attack on any and all freedom we have.

Capital. In every economic system there is capital; cash, labor, material, tools, transportation etc. The question is who manages it..who is in control of it? The state works to be that which controls it but I've found in my travels that individuals push hard against that in nearly every system, save the couple of states with unbridled totalitarianism. People will work hard on their little forbidden garden, hide coins, bullion and art, barter when necessary. Nothing stops the human heart yearning to be free!

I've been watching the U.S. as a Canadian to see what will happen with Obama Care. Isn't the REAL solution to this healthcare problem to put healthcare into the free market system 100%, and so they will have REAL COMPETITION, and let the health care insurance companies come up with ideas that are creative, innovative, and practical to implement and from that offer the average citizen in the U.S. a decent healthcare plan? I thought Trump believed in the free system market place. What happened to that?

You are very clear, Joe, in the necessary remedy. However, politicians and their slimy lobbyist pals, want nothing of a real solution, but rather something that creates loopholes for them to profit handsomely. Prior to govt. involvement in our healthcare, which started with LBJ and Medicare/Medicaid, we had a very competitive system with lots of good options at reasonable prices. Everyone has different priorities, different financial resources, etc. so they should be able to purchase what THEY want and not be burdened with anyone else. Many of the largest users of any govt. health system are those who have made poor choices in diet, exercise, thought mgmt., etc. that leads to sickness. Health is not related to how wealthy you are, but rather to the lifestyle choices you make day to day. Over time, the "piper must be paid" if you abuse your body.

To help those truly in need of help is admirable. The problem is where do you draw the line? Those who work in fast food places or minimal jobs can't expect to have a standard of living to that of a dentist or accountant. The gov needs to stop a lot of the subsidies and handouts, after all if it's about raising your standard of living then it's about the freedom to get off your a$$, and go to school, moonlight on something new, or a second job. Option two is to accept driving your 10 year old car and live in a small apartment on the bad side of town. Sure sounds like a personal problem.